Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-14 Thread Ian McNicoll
Sorry - the reason is that O2% is also described as FIO2 which is directly
mathematically equivalent.

FiO₂
Proportion
Optional

Fraction of oxygen in inspired air.
Comment: For example: '0.28'.

Unitary

Numerator: 0.0..1.0
Percent O₂
Proportion
Optional
Percentage of oxygen in inspired air.
Comment: For example: '24 %'

Percent

Numerator: 0.0..100.0


Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll


Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Bakke, Silje Ljosland <
silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no> wrote:

> Anyone…? 
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Silje*
>
>
>
> *From:* openEHR-technical  *On
> Behalf Of *Bakke, Silje Ljosland
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 8, 2019 2:53 PM
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <
> openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> *Subject:* RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %
>
>
>
> I still don’t understand if we have a conclusion. And I don’t understand
> why proportion is the correct data type for O2 levels but not for alcohol
> levels.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Silje*
>
>
>
> *From:* openEHR-technical  *On
> Behalf Of *Ian McNicoll
> *Sent:* Monday, January 7, 2019 7:13 PM
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <
> openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> *Subject:* Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %
>
>
>
> Simple answer - loads of real data - pulse_oximetry and Oxygen levels will
> have been recorded hundreds of thousands if not millions of times in
> patient data - and Proportion *is* the correct datatype for O2 levels.
>
> Ian
>
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
>
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
>
> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 17:56, Thomas Beale 
> wrote:
>
> one thing to note: DV_PROPORTION is a more complex data structure. I
> would be tempted to try to determine what use has been made of this
> archetype so far - i.e. in creating real data. If no real data has been
> created, then it could in theory be changed.
>
> - thomas
>
> On 07/01/2019 12:11, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> > Hi Silje,
> >
> > As you say, I think this a case of emerging clarity (or less fog of
> > confusion!!) as the various use-cases emerge. As the primary author of
> > both these archetypes, in retrospect I would probably keep
> > inspired_oxygen as DV_PROPORTION and change pulse_oximetry to
> > DV_QUANTITY but!!! I do not see any good argument for changing these
> > now. We have to expect some degree of inconsistency, and live with it,
> > to avoid unnecessary breaking changes.
> >
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-14 Thread Diego Boscá
As far as I understand in oxygen levels the denominator is not 100 but a
quantity, and that denominator may vary. I don't know how it is measured in
alcohol, but probably % of alcohol in blood assuming always the same
quantity to get the percentage?
I'm not really sure anyway :)

El lun., 14 ene. 2019 a las 13:15, Bakke, Silje Ljosland (<
silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no>) escribió:

> Anyone…? 
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Silje*
>
>
>
> *From:* openEHR-technical  *On
> Behalf Of *Bakke, Silje Ljosland
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 8, 2019 2:53 PM
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <
> openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> *Subject:* RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %
>
>
>
> I still don’t understand if we have a conclusion. And I don’t understand
> why proportion is the correct data type for O2 levels but not for alcohol
> levels.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Silje*
>
>
>
> *From:* openEHR-technical  *On
> Behalf Of *Ian McNicoll
> *Sent:* Monday, January 7, 2019 7:13 PM
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <
> openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> *Subject:* Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %
>
>
>
> Simple answer - loads of real data - pulse_oximetry and Oxygen levels will
> have been recorded hundreds of thousands if not millions of times in
> patient data - and Proportion *is* the correct datatype for O2 levels.
>
> Ian
>
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
>
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
>
> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 17:56, Thomas Beale 
> wrote:
>
> one thing to note: DV_PROPORTION is a more complex data structure. I
> would be tempted to try to determine what use has been made of this
> archetype so far - i.e. in creating real data. If no real data has been
> created, then it could in theory be changed.
>
> - thomas
>
> On 07/01/2019 12:11, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> > Hi Silje,
> >
> > As you say, I think this a case of emerging clarity (or less fog of
> > confusion!!) as the various use-cases emerge. As the primary author of
> > both these archetypes, in retrospect I would probably keep
> > inspired_oxygen as DV_PROPORTION and change pulse_oximetry to
> > DV_QUANTITY but!!! I do not see any good argument for changing these
> > now. We have to expect some degree of inconsistency, and live with it,
> > to avoid unnecessary breaking changes.
> >
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>


-- 

[image: VeraTech for Health SL] <https://htmlsig.com/t/01C268PZ>

[image: Twitter]  <https://htmlsig.com/t/01C47QQH> [image: LinkedIn]
<https://htmlsig.com/t/01C4DPJG> [image: Maps]
<https://htmlsig.com/t/01BZTWS7>

Diego Boscá Tomás / Senior developer
diebo...@veratech.es
yamp...@gmail.com

VeraTech for Health SL
+34 654604676 <+34%20654604676>
www.veratech.es

La información contenida en este mensaje y/o archivo(s) adjunto(s), enviada
desde VERATECH FOR HEALTH, SL, es confidencial/privilegiada y está
destinada a ser leída sólo por la(s) persona(s) a la(s) que va dirigida. Le
recordamos que sus datos han sido incorporados en el sistema de tratamiento
de VERATECH FOR HEALTH, SL y que siempre y cuando se cumplan los requisitos
exigidos por la normativa, usted podrá ejercer sus derechos de acceso,
rectificación, limitación de tratamiento, supresión, portabilidad y
oposición/revocación, en los términos que establece la normativa vigente en
materia de protección de datos, dirigiendo su petición a Avda Puerto 237,
1º, pta 1 - 46011 Valencia o bien a través de correo electrónico
d...@veratech.es

Si usted lee este mensaje y no es el destinatario señalado, el empleado o
el agente responsable de entregar el mensaje al destinatario, o ha recibido
esta comunicación por error, le informamos que está totalmente prohibida, y
puede ser ilegal, cualquier divulgación, distribución o reproducción de
esta comunicación, y le rogamos que nos lo notifique inmediatamente y nos
devuelva el mensaje original a la dirección arriba mencionada. Gracias
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-14 Thread Bakke, Silje Ljosland
Anyone…? 

Regards,
Silje

From: openEHR-technical  On Behalf 
Of Bakke, Silje Ljosland
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 2:53 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions 
Subject: RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

I still don’t understand if we have a conclusion. And I don’t understand why 
proportion is the correct data type for O2 levels but not for alcohol levels.

Regards,
Silje

From: openEHR-technical 
mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>>
 On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 7:13 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions 
mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>>
Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

Simple answer - loads of real data - pulse_oximetry and Oxygen levels will have 
been recorded hundreds of thousands if not millions of times in patient data - 
and Proportion *is* the correct datatype for O2 levels.

Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com<mailto:i...@freshehr.com>
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=0BzLo3mNUvbAjUmNWaFZYZlZ5djg=0BzLo3mNUvbAjRzZKc0JpUXl2SkRtMDJ0bkdUcUQxM2dqSVdrPQ]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.org<mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.org>
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 17:56, Thomas Beale 
mailto:thomas.be...@openehr.org>> wrote:
one thing to note: DV_PROPORTION is a more complex data structure. I
would be tempted to try to determine what use has been made of this
archetype so far - i.e. in creating real data. If no real data has been
created, then it could in theory be changed.

- thomas

On 07/01/2019 12:11, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> Hi Silje,
>
> As you say, I think this a case of emerging clarity (or less fog of
> confusion!!) as the various use-cases emerge. As the primary author of
> both these archetypes, in retrospect I would probably keep
> inspired_oxygen as DV_PROPORTION and change pulse_oximetry to
> DV_QUANTITY but!!! I do not see any good argument for changing these
> now. We have to expect some degree of inconsistency, and live with it,
> to avoid unnecessary breaking changes.
>


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-08 Thread Bakke, Silje Ljosland
I still don’t understand if we have a conclusion. And I don’t understand why 
proportion is the correct data type for O2 levels but not for alcohol levels.

Regards,
Silje

From: openEHR-technical  On Behalf 
Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 7:13 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions 
Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

Simple answer - loads of real data - pulse_oximetry and Oxygen levels will have 
been recorded hundreds of thousands if not millions of times in patient data - 
and Proportion *is* the correct datatype for O2 levels.

Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com<mailto:i...@freshehr.com>
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=0BzLo3mNUvbAjUmNWaFZYZlZ5djg=0BzLo3mNUvbAjRzZKc0JpUXl2SkRtMDJ0bkdUcUQxM2dqSVdrPQ]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.org<mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.org>
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 17:56, Thomas Beale 
mailto:thomas.be...@openehr.org>> wrote:
one thing to note: DV_PROPORTION is a more complex data structure. I
would be tempted to try to determine what use has been made of this
archetype so far - i.e. in creating real data. If no real data has been
created, then it could in theory be changed.

- thomas

On 07/01/2019 12:11, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> Hi Silje,
>
> As you say, I think this a case of emerging clarity (or less fog of
> confusion!!) as the various use-cases emerge. As the primary author of
> both these archetypes, in retrospect I would probably keep
> inspired_oxygen as DV_PROPORTION and change pulse_oximetry to
> DV_QUANTITY but!!! I do not see any good argument for changing these
> now. We have to expect some degree of inconsistency, and live with it,
> to avoid unnecessary breaking changes.
>


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-07 Thread Ian McNicoll
Simple answer - loads of real data - pulse_oximetry and Oxygen levels will
have been recorded hundreds of thousands if not millions of times in
patient data - and Proportion *is* the correct datatype for O2 levels.

Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll


Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 17:56, Thomas Beale  wrote:

> one thing to note: DV_PROPORTION is a more complex data structure. I
> would be tempted to try to determine what use has been made of this
> archetype so far - i.e. in creating real data. If no real data has been
> created, then it could in theory be changed.
>
> - thomas
>
> On 07/01/2019 12:11, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> > Hi Silje,
> >
> > As you say, I think this a case of emerging clarity (or less fog of
> > confusion!!) as the various use-cases emerge. As the primary author of
> > both these archetypes, in retrospect I would probably keep
> > inspired_oxygen as DV_PROPORTION and change pulse_oximetry to
> > DV_QUANTITY but!!! I do not see any good argument for changing these
> > now. We have to expect some degree of inconsistency, and live with it,
> > to avoid unnecessary breaking changes.
> >
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-07 Thread Thomas Beale
one thing to note: DV_PROPORTION is a more complex data structure. I 
would be tempted to try to determine what use has been made of this 
archetype so far - i.e. in creating real data. If no real data has been 
created, then it could in theory be changed.


- thomas

On 07/01/2019 12:11, Ian McNicoll wrote:

Hi Silje,

As you say, I think this a case of emerging clarity (or less fog of 
confusion!!) as the various use-cases emerge. As the primary author of 
both these archetypes, in retrospect I would probably keep 
inspired_oxygen as DV_PROPORTION and change pulse_oximetry to 
DV_QUANTITY but!!! I do not see any good argument for changing these 
now. We have to expect some degree of inconsistency, and live with it, 
to avoid unnecessary breaking changes.





___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-07 Thread Ian McNicoll
Hi Silje,

As you say, I think this a case of emerging clarity (or less fog of
confusion!!) as the various use-cases emerge. As the primary author of
both these archetypes, in retrospect I would probably keep inspired_oxygen
as DV_PROPORTION and change pulse_oximetry to DV_QUANTITY but!!! I do not
see any good argument for changing these now. We have to expect some degree
of inconsistency, and live with it, to avoid unnecessary breaking changes.

Ian



Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll


Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 12:02, Bakke, Silje Ljosland <
silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no> wrote:

> I think maybe actual modelling practice should be taken into account here.
> Since these guidelines haven't been available, several important
> percentages in published archetypes have been modelled as DV_PROPORTION:
> openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.inspired_oxygen.v1
> https://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.393
> openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.pulse_oximetry.v1
> https://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.3084
>
> The way I understand the arguments here, there isn't a good one for
> changing these data types and going to v2 for these archetypes?
>
> Regards,
> Silje
>
> -Original Message-
> From: openEHR-technical  On
> Behalf Of Thomas Beale
> Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2019 3:36 PM
> To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
> Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %
>
>
> On 05/01/2019 12:56, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> > There is a very clear use-case for having it there - O2 levels
> > variably and equivalently described a FiO2 which is a unitary
> > proportion or percent.
> >
> > I think we need to keep it for that reason if no other.
>
> So in that case we need to upgrade the documentation for when to choose a
> DV_QUANTITY percent, and when a DV_PROPORTION %.
>
> - thomas
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-07 Thread Bakke, Silje Ljosland
I think maybe actual modelling practice should be taken into account here. 
Since these guidelines haven't been available, several important percentages in 
published archetypes have been modelled as DV_PROPORTION:
openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.inspired_oxygen.v1 
https://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.393 
openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.pulse_oximetry.v1 
https://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.3084 

The way I understand the arguments here, there isn't a good one for changing 
these data types and going to v2 for these archetypes?

Regards,
Silje

-Original Message-
From: openEHR-technical  On Behalf 
Of Thomas Beale
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2019 3:36 PM
To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %


On 05/01/2019 12:56, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> There is a very clear use-case for having it there - O2 levels 
> variably and equivalently described a FiO2 which is a unitary 
> proportion or percent.
>
> I think we need to keep it for that reason if no other.

So in that case we need to upgrade the documentation for when to choose a 
DV_QUANTITY percent, and when a DV_PROPORTION %.

- thomas



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-05 Thread Thomas Beale


On 05/01/2019 12:56, Ian McNicoll wrote:
There is a very clear use-case for having it there - O2 levels 
variably and equivalently described a FiO2 which is a unitary 
proportion or percent.


I think we need to keep it for that reason if no other.


So in that case we need to upgrade the documentation for when to choose 
a DV_QUANTITY percent, and when a DV_PROPORTION %.


- thomas



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-05 Thread Ian McNicoll
There is a very clear use-case for having it there - O2 levels variably and
equivalently described a FiO2 which is a unitary proportion or percent.

I think we need to keep it for that reason if no other.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll


Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 12:07, Thomas Beale  wrote:

> Hi Silje,
>
> See here
> <https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/data_types.html#_ratios_and_proportions>.
> But I think the % case may have been there since early 2000s and either %
> was not in UCUM, or perhaps it was, but we did not realise it. So ideally
> we should change the documentation to obsolete it in DV_PROPORTION.
>
> - thomas
> On 04/01/2019 20:40, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
>
> In that case, I don't understand the use case for the 'percent' and 'unitary' 
> variants of the DV_PROPORTION data type. What are they for?
>
> Regards,
> Silje
>
> -Original Message-
> From: openEHR-technical  
>  On Behalf Of Thomas Beale
> Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 8:38 PM
> To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
> Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %
>
>
> On 03/01/2019 08:37, David Moner wrote:
>
> I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is
> not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT.
>
> DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the
> numerator and denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which
> should not be the case with percentages. But it is true that the
> definition of the type attribute in the specification is a bit
> misleading: "Indicates semantic type of proportion, including percent,
> unitary etc."
>
> David is right on all counts - use DV_QUANTITY, but we should fix that line 
> in the specification. Can someone raise a PR on that please.
>
> - thomas
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing 
> listopenEHR-technical@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing 
> listopenEHR-technical@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
> --
> Thomas Beale
> Principal, Ars Semantica <http://www.arssemantica.com>
> Consultant, ABD Project, Intermountain Healthcare
> <https://intermountainhealthcare.org/>
> Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
> <http://www.openehr.org>
> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
> <http://www.bcs.org/category/6044>
> Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog
> <http://wolandsothercat.net/> | The Objective Stance
> <https://theobjectivestance.net/>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-05 Thread Thomas Beale

Hi Silje,

See here 
<https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/data_types.html#_ratios_and_proportions>. 
But I think the % case may have been there since early 2000s and either 
% was not in UCUM, or perhaps it was, but we did not realise it. So 
ideally we should change the documentation to obsolete it in DV_PROPORTION.


- thomas

On 04/01/2019 20:40, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:

In that case, I don't understand the use case for the 'percent' and 'unitary' 
variants of the DV_PROPORTION data type. What are they for?

Regards,
Silje

-Original Message-
From: openEHR-technical  On Behalf 
Of Thomas Beale
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 8:38 PM
To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %


On 03/01/2019 08:37, David Moner wrote:

I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is
not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT.

DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the
numerator and denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which
should not be the case with percentages. But it is true that the
definition of the type attribute in the specification is a bit
misleading: "Indicates semantic type of proportion, including percent,
unitary etc."

David is right on all counts - use DV_QUANTITY, but we should fix that line in 
the specification. Can someone raise a PR on that please.

- thomas



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica <http://www.arssemantica.com>
Consultant, ABD Project, Intermountain Healthcare 
<https://intermountainhealthcare.org/>
Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation 
<http://www.openehr.org>
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society 
<http://www.bcs.org/category/6044>
Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog 
<http://wolandsothercat.net/> | The Objective Stance 
<https://theobjectivestance.net/>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-04 Thread Bakke, Silje Ljosland
In that case, I don't understand the use case for the 'percent' and 'unitary' 
variants of the DV_PROPORTION data type. What are they for?

Regards,
Silje

-Original Message-
From: openEHR-technical  On Behalf 
Of Thomas Beale
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 8:38 PM
To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %


On 03/01/2019 08:37, David Moner wrote:
> I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is 
> not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT.
>
> DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the 
> numerator and denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which 
> should not be the case with percentages. But it is true that the 
> definition of the type attribute in the specification is a bit
> misleading: "Indicates semantic type of proportion, including percent, 
> unitary etc."

David is right on all counts - use DV_QUANTITY, but we should fix that line in 
the specification. Can someone raise a PR on that please.

- thomas



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-04 Thread Thomas Beale



On 03/01/2019 08:37, David Moner wrote:
I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is 
not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT.


DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the 
numerator and denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which 
should not be the case with percentages. But it is true that the 
definition of the type attribute in the specification is a bit 
misleading: "Indicates semantic type of proportion, including percent, 
unitary etc."


David is right on all counts - use DV_QUANTITY, but we should fix that 
line in the specification. Can someone raise a PR on that please.


- thomas



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-03 Thread Diego Boscá
Also, take into account that if you use DV_PROPORTION to represent this
percent, you will always have this double quantity stored in your data,
which doesn't really add nothing of value and just will slow down your
queries.

Regards

El jue., 3 ene. 2019 10:30, Ian McNicoll  escribió:

> Hi Marcus,
>
> I think that is the intended use. It is the case that UCUM has a '%' unit
> as part of DV_QUANTITY which I think I have only ever used in the context
> of integrating a lab test where the 'proportionality' of the value is not
> really relevant i.e it is in some ways an arbitrary unit.
>
> Ian
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 09:20, Marcus Baw  wrote:
>
>> As a relative OpenEHR outsider but a data modelling enthusiast, I would
>> agree with Silje that if this is known to be a proportion then using
>> DV_PROPORTION seems more intuitive, as this preserves the semantics of the
>> data. It also would allow confident conversion of that data into other
>> types of proportion (eg per-thousand or PPM)
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 08:57, Bakke, Silje Ljosland <
>> silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no> wrote:
>>
>>> I would have guessed it would be the other way around. If you know at
>>> design time that this value will be a percentage, use the DV_PROPORTION
>>> data type with the ‘type’ attribute set to 2 (percent, denominator fixed to
>>> 100). On the other hand if you don’t know for sure (such as for some lab
>>> results or medication strengths which could be for example mg/ml or %
>>> interchangeably), you would use DV_QUANTITY.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> *Silje*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* openEHR-clinical  *On
>>> Behalf Of *David Moner
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 3, 2019 9:37 AM
>>> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <
>>> openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
>>> *Cc:* For openEHR clinical discussions (
>>> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org) 
>>> *Subject:* Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is
>>> not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the
>>> numerator and denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which should
>>> not be the case with percentages. But it is true that the definition of the
>>> type attribute in the specification is a bit misleading: "Indicates
>>> semantic type of proportion, including percent, unitary etc."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El jue., 3 ene. 2019 a las 7:59, Bakke, Silje Ljosland (<
>>> silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no>) escribió:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone, happy new year!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We’ve just hit a question about modelling choices, how to represent
>>> percentages. We have a data type DV_PROPORTION, which can be used to
>>> represent any proportion such as a fraction or a percentage, and we have
>>> the DV_QUANTITY data type which can have % as the unit. In most existing
>>> archetypes such as the OBSERVATION.pulse_oximetry archetype, we’ve used the
>>> DV_PROPORTION data type for the percent elements, while for some reason in
>>> the draft EVALUATION.alcohol_consumption_summary archetype we’ve chosen
>>> DV_QUANTITY with the unit ‘%’ for the “Strength” element.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We’ve had a look at the data types documentation (
>>> https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/data_types.html),
>>> and we can’t really find any guidance in the examples there. Is there any
>>> guidance about this anywhere else? Does anyone have any opinions about when
>>> to use each data type for percentages?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> *Silje Ljosland Bakke*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Information Architect, RN
>>>
>>> Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
>>> Nasjonal IKT HF, Norway
>>>
>>> Tel. +47 40203298
>>>

Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-03 Thread Ian McNicoll
Hi Marcus,

I think that is the intended use. It is the case that UCUM has a '%' unit
as part of DV_QUANTITY which I think I have only ever used in the context
of integrating a lab test where the 'proportionality' of the value is not
really relevant i.e it is in some ways an arbitrary unit.

Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll


Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 09:20, Marcus Baw  wrote:

> As a relative OpenEHR outsider but a data modelling enthusiast, I would
> agree with Silje that if this is known to be a proportion then using
> DV_PROPORTION seems more intuitive, as this preserves the semantics of the
> data. It also would allow confident conversion of that data into other
> types of proportion (eg per-thousand or PPM)
>
> Marcus
>
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 08:57, Bakke, Silje Ljosland <
> silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no> wrote:
>
>> I would have guessed it would be the other way around. If you know at
>> design time that this value will be a percentage, use the DV_PROPORTION
>> data type with the ‘type’ attribute set to 2 (percent, denominator fixed to
>> 100). On the other hand if you don’t know for sure (such as for some lab
>> results or medication strengths which could be for example mg/ml or %
>> interchangeably), you would use DV_QUANTITY.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> *Silje*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* openEHR-clinical  *On
>> Behalf Of *David Moner
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 3, 2019 9:37 AM
>> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <
>> openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
>> *Cc:* For openEHR clinical discussions (
>> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org) 
>> *Subject:* Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %
>>
>>
>>
>> I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is not
>> a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT.
>>
>>
>>
>> DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the numerator
>> and denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which should not be
>> the case with percentages. But it is true that the definition of the type
>> attribute in the specification is a bit misleading: "Indicates semantic
>> type of proportion, including percent, unitary etc."
>>
>>
>>
>> El jue., 3 ene. 2019 a las 7:59, Bakke, Silje Ljosland (<
>> silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no>) escribió:
>>
>> Hi everyone, happy new year!
>>
>>
>>
>> We’ve just hit a question about modelling choices, how to represent
>> percentages. We have a data type DV_PROPORTION, which can be used to
>> represent any proportion such as a fraction or a percentage, and we have
>> the DV_QUANTITY data type which can have % as the unit. In most existing
>> archetypes such as the OBSERVATION.pulse_oximetry archetype, we’ve used the
>> DV_PROPORTION data type for the percent elements, while for some reason in
>> the draft EVALUATION.alcohol_consumption_summary archetype we’ve chosen
>> DV_QUANTITY with the unit ‘%’ for the “Strength” element.
>>
>>
>>
>> We’ve had a look at the data types documentation (
>> https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/data_types.html),
>> and we can’t really find any guidance in the examples there. Is there any
>> guidance about this anywhere else? Does anyone have any opinions about when
>> to use each data type for percentages?
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> *Silje Ljosland Bakke*
>>
>>
>>
>> Information Architect, RN
>>
>> Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
>> Nasjonal IKT HF, Norway
>>
>> Tel. +47 40203298
>>
>> Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter: @arketyper_no
>> <https://twitter.com/arketyper_no>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> David Moner Cano
>>
>> Web: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner
>>
>> Twitter: @davidmoner
>>
>> Skype: davidmoner
>> ___
>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>>
> ___
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-03 Thread Bakke, Silje Ljosland
I would have guessed it would be the other way around. If you know at design 
time that this value will be a percentage, use the DV_PROPORTION data type with 
the ‘type’ attribute set to 2 (percent, denominator fixed to 100). On the other 
hand if you don’t know for sure (such as for some lab results or medication 
strengths which could be for example mg/ml or % interchangeably), you would use 
DV_QUANTITY.

Regards,
Silje

From: openEHR-clinical  On Behalf 
Of David Moner
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 9:37 AM
To: For openEHR technical discussions 
Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions (openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org) 

Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is not a 
proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT.

DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the numerator and 
denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which should not be the case 
with percentages. But it is true that the definition of the type attribute in 
the specification is a bit misleading: "Indicates semantic type of proportion, 
including percent, unitary etc."

El jue., 3 ene. 2019 a las 7:59, Bakke, Silje Ljosland 
(mailto:silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no>>)
 escribió:
Hi everyone, happy new year!

We’ve just hit a question about modelling choices, how to represent 
percentages. We have a data type DV_PROPORTION, which can be used to represent 
any proportion such as a fraction or a percentage, and we have the DV_QUANTITY 
data type which can have % as the unit. In most existing archetypes such as the 
OBSERVATION.pulse_oximetry archetype, we’ve used the DV_PROPORTION data type 
for the percent elements, while for some reason in the draft 
EVALUATION.alcohol_consumption_summary archetype we’ve chosen DV_QUANTITY with 
the unit ‘%’ for the “Strength” element.

We’ve had a look at the data types documentation 
(https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/data_types.html), and we 
can’t really find any guidance in the examples there. Is there any guidance 
about this anywhere else? Does anyone have any opinions about when to use each 
data type for percentages?

Kind regards,
Silje Ljosland Bakke

Information Architect, RN
Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
Nasjonal IKT HF, Norway
Tel. +47 40203298
Web: http://arketyper.no<http://arketyper.no/> / Twitter: 
@arketyper_no<https://twitter.com/arketyper_no>

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


--
David Moner Cano
Web: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner
Twitter: @davidmoner
Skype: davidmoner
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

2019-01-03 Thread David Moner
I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is not a
proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT.

DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the numerator
and denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which should not be
the case with percentages. But it is true that the definition of the type
attribute in the specification is a bit misleading: "Indicates semantic
type of proportion, including percent, unitary etc."

El jue., 3 ene. 2019 a las 7:59, Bakke, Silje Ljosland (<
silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no>) escribió:

> Hi everyone, happy new year!
>
>
>
> We’ve just hit a question about modelling choices, how to represent
> percentages. We have a data type DV_PROPORTION, which can be used to
> represent any proportion such as a fraction or a percentage, and we have
> the DV_QUANTITY data type which can have % as the unit. In most existing
> archetypes such as the OBSERVATION.pulse_oximetry archetype, we’ve used the
> DV_PROPORTION data type for the percent elements, while for some reason in
> the draft EVALUATION.alcohol_consumption_summary archetype we’ve chosen
> DV_QUANTITY with the unit ‘%’ for the “Strength” element.
>
>
>
> We’ve had a look at the data types documentation (
> https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/data_types.html),
> and we can’t really find any guidance in the examples there. Is there any
> guidance about this anywhere else? Does anyone have any opinions about when
> to use each data type for percentages?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
> *Silje Ljosland Bakke*
>
>
>
> Information Architect, RN
>
> Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
> Nasjonal IKT HF, Norway
>
> Tel. +47 40203298
>
> Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter: @arketyper_no
> 
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>


-- 
David Moner Cano

Web: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner
Twitter: @davidmoner
Skype: davidmoner
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org